Originally Posted by ScottieC

swagger

Originally Posted by mgteich

If we believe that we would be a heavy favorite to at least having a bye, then perhaps the defense is performing as well as one might expect. Perhaps they have simply not stepped up to the extra burden on them and the additional time on the field and the lack of garbage time (like last year when we were often a couple of touchdowns ahead).

I do indeed believe that we would be a heavy favorite to compete with the upstart Titans for championship in the AFC, if Brady were here.

So for me, there is no need to be talking about replacing and redoing the entire defense or even major parts. That is already being done. To put it another way, we have been bringing in new players. Mayo and Guyton are extraordinary rookie starters. We might have a future starting corner or backup help in Wheatley, Wilhite and/or Richardson. Meriweather has shown he is the real deal. And we have some linebackers we haven't heard from yet. Surely Redd and Crable are potential backups.

Sure, Vrabel and Bruschi have lost a couple of steps, as expected. They may be only good enough to be role players next year. So! Why is it a negative to have veteran role players. We used to consider such a situation a positive.

Originally Posted by jmt57

I'd guess the Pats would be 8-2. A couple of extra plays made in the Jets and Colts games would make the difference. The Miami and San Diego games would still have been lost.

Originally Posted by Rob0729

Actually I think the Pats could have won the Miami game. The Pats seemed to have the momentum early and were stopping them on defense and moving the ball on offense. The whole momentum shifted (for the rest of the game) on a Cassel INT.

I do agree with KontradictioN that these Brady threads are exercises in futility though. We asll know the Pats would have had a better record and been in a much better position to compete for the Super Bowl, but why bother speculating?